The Hidden Kept Hidden

I should begin first in this address of the subject to stipulate that this interpretation of the subject has no connectivity with other traditions or renditions in fiction. Instead this is a conjecture on a lateral interpretation and utilization of the medium as a methodology of self focus for introspection and as a directive medium for exploitation. Where in other instances I find it necessary to limit and quantify varied interpretations here I am saying what is from another conception as opposed to actually discontinuing interpretation. This is one aspect of what the Dark Gods can be leaving many more venues open.

That said, let us continue.

Understanding the Dark Gods

A common place of confusion in addressing the Dark Gods is quite simply the word ‘dark’. Utilization of this phrase is often found within paradigms as an aesthetic expression or as a connotation of a sinister appellation to innate powers found within nature or the individual. Very little is often conferred to said personages beyond this scope. My utilization of the word is not far divergent from the above excepting that I also address said powers in such a way as an expression of the innate hidden nature of their being.

Man is intrinsically a creature of the day. He exists within the seen and within the perceived succumbing to inactivity and rest during the nocturnal. In this way then that which is masked by darkness is metaphorically that which is hidden, or otherwise referenced as ‘occult’. To confer the title of dark to any subject is to infer a lack of common understanding as well as subject the reference to the mental manipulation of man’s visual creativity. Within the dark, within the hidden, there reside creatures and fissures of horror. Conquering the night is analogous to conquest of the hidden or the subjugation of fear through the overcoming of unseen adversity.

The Dark Gods are the things within ourselves that are often hidden because we do not want to see their faces. This thing we call a conscience, this construct rendered by society and contractual agreement in being a part of it, locks them away. Morality in and of itself is not a ‘bad’ thing. Morals are necessary if we look at them as proclivities of the individual and based on personal understanding for maintaining life within what conditions are determined as being desirous. That is living with something closer to honor though, having an established code and mandate towards action. The conscience is an alien thing and has no real place within us.

The conscience is a secondary thought process that inspires guilt or rejection of happenings. It’s hindsight with cultural ramifications. It in no way inhibits behavior or stops the individual from participating in acts that could be called ‘bad’ rather it subjugates the individual later with the burden of wrongness. Feeling wrong about something after it is done though doesn’t take it back. As an influence to right action as a medium this presence could only plausibly be successful after a life of poor choosing that would invariably burn it out.

In the end we have these notions of character that are not really of ourselves but rather constructs given to us through our lives. They are rules by which the game of life should be played identifying direction and locations along with some notion of rewards and punishments. This game has a rather small board though and it is being played on a very large table. When we look off to a side and see something of interest we are given a sting by this conscience that remembers always the rules. It is the table that is the world of the Dark Gods. They are within the casual existence and support it, but they also are outside of it representing the ‘other’ aspects of ourselves and our existence.

The Dark Gads are the things inside ourselves that we deny because we have been told they are wrong. They are the desires we have, the cravings we long for, and the drives we stifle. Having an alien construct tell us that they are wrong and give us pain in recognizing them does not remove them from our being. They will always be there in hiding, and more then capable of terrifying.

What must first be understood about this is that they are not wrong, because they are of us. They are natural and part of our being. Nothing that is of us can be ‘wrong’ in and of itself. Nature does not make mistakes. It may create in a way that we may see as failure, but it will also destroy and bury in time these matters. Only our insufficient conception of the everything is what shows us ‘failure’. This is a failure of our grasp of the aeonic or significantly long term, a modality our reason often has no capacity for.

What must be understood second is that this does not mean action. Knowing your desire and gorging yourself to satiety are two different things. Restraint and control are two words often expressed in one as ‘willpower’. Nothing is wrong in wanting; it only becomes a burden and a hindrance to our becoming through acquisition. Our desires must be channeled through our authentic morality, our ‘honor’ component and reason before being manifest within our lives. This still gives a great deal of rein on the individual in pursuit of the hideous, but honestly it is the same always before or after this statement.

Action will always be of the individual. Rules only have meaning and or consequence in regards to groups. Think of a child at play with a ball merely seeking entertainment. Now imagine two children still having only one ball. They make a game then so that one ball can sustain the two in entertainment and begin in crafting rules of play. For one there was prerogative and freedom, for two there is now limit and stricture. This is unavoidable on the exterior. Inside though there is only one voice and one being, inside we are as the child and our desires are both the ball and its use.

In seeking to know self one must know all of self. It is possible to render focus on any one aspect as it as one may see fit, but in seeking to control the whole knowing only a fraction makes it impossible. Communicating with the Dark Gods allows us to see the entirety of our being and grants us greater control while also allowing us to tap into the power of their origin within the individual. Addressing them and integrating them into the entirety removes the blockage within self that others have constructed and that we maintain. This maintenance draws on us, we hold up a burden that isn’t even ours. Ridding ourselves of it brings us back to something of our true state, our natural state, leaving us simply as potential.

When we have entered into communication with the Dark Gods we will begin to know them. In knowing them we will find ourselves in reality beginning to know ourselves. They are therefore only reference devices or abstractions to origin. Their faces and what names we give them will eventually cease to have meaning as they are integrated back into the whole. When we find ourselves closer to our natural state we will have no need for this manner of tools and deceptions.

The Dark Gods now though are hidden within us. It is because of that that we must call them gods and give them names. It is because of this that we must construct languages of symbols and ceremony to allow us to communicate with them. We must remember always though in our intimacy with them that this strategy is merely a bridge that brings us back to the beginning. Our love for them and our adoration is the masked longing for our completed self and the jealousy of their freedom of being.